Talk:Tim Hortons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Tim Hortons has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
December 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Archive

Archives
1. June 2005 - November 2006

Contents

[edit] Comments on GA review

I got here through the GA nominations page. The article is indeed quite good but some facts need referencing. Also, no decent article should have a separate trivia section. Either the content is relevant and should be added in the proper place or it is irrelevant and should be removed. The Homolka bit, for instance, could go in the canadian icon subsection. If it looks inappropriate there, then it should be deleted. Also, there is no need to be openly critical but the overall tone seemed a bit too close to what someone from the Tim Hortons' PR department would write. For now, I haven't passed or failed the article. Pascal.Tesson 05:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my own comment from yesterday, I was expecting to see some discussion surrounding Dunkin' Donuts. At least in Quebec, it seems that the rise of Tim Hortons completely crushed them. By the way, once the few missing citations are added, I think this could go straight to featured article candidates. Pascal.Tesson 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

This article meets all of the Good Article criteria. It's well-written, thoroughly referenced, and makes good use of images. I'd encourage taking it toward Featured Article status; I don't think it's very far away. Shimeru 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] donut or doughnut?

Tim Hortons spells it donut. Additionally, donut is more common in Canada. Should the spelling be changed from "doughnut" to "donut"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.5.239 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Please read the archived discussion page. This very question was debated quite recently with no definite consensus either way, and I don't know how much appetite anybody has right now for reopening it so soon. I have no strong feelings either way (I voted "don't really care as long as we're consistent" in the original discussion), but I will say that we're not necessarily bound to use "donut" just because Tim Hortons does; we follow Wikipedia's internal style guidelines, not external corporate style preferences. Bearcat 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
i do not think donut is the moer common spelling anyway. SECProto 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't really commonness of the spelling, but whether the article should be in Canadian English, which prefers Doughnut, or Tim Hortons English which prefers Donut. The MOS is surprisingly vague about this ... WilyD 14:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that that is the real issue, but i was just questioning the OP, who considered that donut is the canadian english spelling (saying donut is more common in canada implies that donut is the canadian english spelling.) SECProto 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OP? I am under the impression (though I don't have one handy) that the Canadian Oxford Dictionary prefers Doughnut. If it preferred Donut, I'm fairly sure there'd be no contraversy. WilyD 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The Canadian Oxford has doughnut as the main spelling, with donut as a "North American variant". I don't know that it's a question of doughnut being the Canadian spelling, however -- in the archived discussion, Bearcat's google search uncovered plenty of Canadian and American uses of both doughnut and donut. I don't feel terribly strongly about it either way, as long as the article is consistent, sticks with one and we avoid any more back-and-forth unilateral wholesale switches of the spelling. I guess I lean towards doughnut, if I had to pick one, because:

(a) The main Wikipedia article on the generic product spells it doughnut;

(b) The Canadian Oxford appears to prefer the doughnut spelling; and

(c) We are not bound by Tim Hortons' corporate spelling choices, so the fact that their signs say "donut" is not determinative.

But that's just my two cents. Skeezix1000 16:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely on the doughtnut side of this argument. I was simply questioning the original poster, the unsigned person, who said "Additionally, donut is more common in Canada." I said that i thought doughnut is more common. we all seem to be agreeing yet still arguing :) SECProto 16:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As Canadian Oxford prefers Doughnut as more common in Canada, without another reference I think we all have to accept it as so, per various policies. That said, we aren't 'required to spell it donut just because it's spelt that way by Tim Hortons, but that certainly is a valid motivation for spelling it that way. The article should be consistant, undoubtedly (again, I hope this is undisputed). I personally think the MOS implies (but does not state explicitly) that donut should be the prefered spelling here, on similar grounds to the which dialect of english? question. WilyD 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wily, not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Skeezix1000 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the manual of style articles should use the relevent national variety of english where generic alternatives cannot be found. It seems fairly obvious to me that subnational entities with distinct english dialects should also use that dialect (i.e. the article Happy Valley-Goose Bay should be written in Newfoundland English, not Canadian English. From this I extrapolate as implicit the idea that in general, an article about anything should use that thing's preferred variety of English. From this I conclud this article should use Tim Hortons' preferred spelling of Donut - what I somewhat jokingly have called Tim Hortons English WilyD 18:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that The Canadian Oxford is probably wrong about this, this is one of those American spellings that Canadians use too, and the Canadian Oxford is unaware of this. Who in Canada spells it "Doughnut"? (Talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic, a doughnut is neither dough, nor a nut. Discuss.) But lacking sources to back me up, I guess "doughnut" it is. Spebudmak 07:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I was taught that "donut" was the quick way to write it, much like "drive thru". I think Timmy's has made "donut" the preferred spelling amongst normal people, but Canadian style guides tend to prefer "doughnut". --BranER

Ummm... Tim Horton's signage in every Canadian city I've been to spells it "donut", so I say the Tim's spelling should be used in this article but that's just my two cents. newsong 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • All Tim Hortons stores across Canada and the United States use DONUT on their signage and labels. I'm Canadian and I don't know anyone who spells it "doughnut". DONUT ... that's the way Tim Hortons spells it, and this is the article for Tim Hortons, so it needs to be changed.

http://www.timhortons.com/en/menu/menu_donuts.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hozombel (talk • contribs) 20:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Store #3000

I added the information for store #3000, but there is no definite source yet - it just opened today. I imagine the source for the other milestone stores will suffice once it's updated by the company. --Varco 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to their store list of 7-DEC-2006, there are 2,517 stores ___currently operating___ in Canada and 310 in the US for a total of 2,827 stores. One of these might have been store #3000, but again, this doesn't mean that there are 3,000 stores in their chain.

If you would like a copy of this store list, so that you can verify my numbers, please leave a message here with your contact info and I will send it to you.

I am reverting to the previous version. This is not a list of currently operating stores. It is taken directly from their history, which seems to have been removed from the FAQ page since I added the information (their whole site is being revamped, so it isn't very surprising). The list is still available here, and I have updated the source in the article: [1].
The store is #3000. If there's a "citation needed" tag, don't delete it because nobody has yet found a source; that's the point of the tag. I put that there in hopes of a better source than me going and taking a picture of the sign that says "Tim Hortons #3000," but if it is absolutely necessary, I will.
P.S. Please register and sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)
--Varco 05:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horton-apostrophe-s

Is it "Tim Hortons" or "TIm Horton's"? The article currently uses both. It should stick to one. For what it's worth, the company spells it without the apostrophe. 68.162.117.236 03:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I protest it in daily use due to the grammatical horror, it should probably be "Tim Hortons;" that's the official name of the company. As an interesting side note, the Firefox spell checker suggests "Horton's" in place of "Hortons"--Varco 05:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This sort of thing particularly annoys me when it's coming from multi-million dollar companies (Wegmans, Caesars Palace, etc). Couldn't they find one guy in marketing that knows how to read and write English? Even so, it's not Wikipedia's job to correct their mistakes. If that's the company's official name, that's what we should call them. --24.58.14.1 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think there are legal reasons, e.g. difficulties in trademarking names of real people. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Hortons

The Tim Horton chain began as a burger joint. It was suggested, by Joyce I believe, to change over to a coffee shop, as the lucrative business of all the steelworkers starting or ending their shifts would pay off better than those going for lunch or dinner there. (the original location on Ottawa street is relatively close to Stelco, Dofacso, and National Steel Car). Can't find a source to back this up currently but I think it's a pretty well known fact by those who live in Hamilton 216.223.145.145 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone clear it up but there was a Tim Horton Coffee Shop built in North Bay, Ontario in the late 50s. The First built as a chain was the one mentioned in the article in 1964 in Hamilton. 24.235.216.83 17:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of stores

Someone keeps adding a site called findbyclick.com as a "reference." There are two problems with this: the site itself does not cite a reliable source... it links to a text file that appears to be compiled by the owners of the site, with a note saying that you can purchase the database of locations from the site. This is the third time somebody has added it and had it reverted. --Varco 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


The 'text file', mentioned by Varco, and available at http://www.findbyclick.com/stats/data/TimHortons_World_JAN2007.zip has been edited to clearly state its source:

"This database was obtained from Tim Hortons official locator service (http://web.sa.mapquest.com/timhortons) and corrected/enhanced by the FindByClick community of volunteers ( http://www.findbyclick.com/community/ )"

(We also communicate with Tim Hortons directly concerning any omissions / errors we encounter with their database, which eventually gets loaded back into their database.)

Sorry about this omission. I hope that with this correction, our source stands as the most accurate and precise count of Tim Hortons stores currently available.

As well, I'd like to add that www.findbyclick.com/stats provides a number of other statistics, presented in both map and tabular formats. All are derived from sources referenced at the bottom of the page.

 Kmacd 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I found a few errors in the title of the '# Tim Hortons stores' map I just uploaded. Will replace tomorrow. I didn't roll back as the primary content (ie. shading of provinces / states on the map plus the legend) is correct and as it stands should be an improvement over the old map that was there.

Could someone else comment on this whole issue? I understand the intentions are good, but it seems to border on self-promotion. --Varco 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I also wonder about the accuracy of the site... I just checked my area and found one of the stores I frequent was not there. Another spot had a store that doesn't exist (and never did). --Varco 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I can tell you that the find by click map is wrong. Knowing people inside the company, there are over 200 stores in Halifax Region alone. Revert to the old map that someone had made for the site. The find by click map is not accurate or reliable. --74.104.48.172 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is TDL Group

Well, What is it? You don't say! The legal name of Tim Hortons on that ticker symbol is "Tim Hortons, Inc." I work for a Tim-Horton's location and I do NOT know who or what TDL Group is. We have some packages which say "Made for The TDL Group, Ltd." and "Made for The TDL Group Corp.". A lot of our boxes say things like TDL 31234 for part number, and there is a sign in our lobby which says "bla bla bla operated under license from T.H.D. Donut (Delaware), Inc. The Franchise Information Report is mailed to "The T.H.D. Group, LLC." This companies address is in Dublin, Ohio. I might add, who is T.H.D. Group, LLC and Who is T.H.D. Donut Delaware Inc?

Obviously The TDL Group is important. But WHAT is it? And I dont think that mentioning it without warning in the middle of the article makes this a "Good Article". Johnzw 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd put in an explainer on it some time ago that was apparently removed in an article reorganization. I've readded a similar disclaimer. Basically, TDL was Tim's publicly-traded parent company prior to the Wendy's merger. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tim Dounut Limited Group Ltd. is the company of Tim Hortons, which is just a trading name. TDL is who you work for and who owns all of the stores. TDL is in turn owned publicly. Dale-DCX 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elderly lady story

"In April 2007, Tim Hortons came under fire when an elderly customer injured himself on a broken knife end left in a turkey bacon sandwich. Although the employee producing the sandwich recognized that the knife was broken and the end was missing, he did not report the incident or take action before the customer consumed the sandwich. Tim Hortons claims no wrong doing and is pending investigation into the matter."

I can't locate any news items for this. I propose that it be deleted if no one else can either. newsong 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muffins to the infobox

I added muffins to the infobox. I'm eating one now infact, and it's delicious.

Myden 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Not an unreasonable comment or addition, although that second statement is factually inexact. I cannot for the life of me understand how Tim Horton's knows how to make everything well except muffins, which they do terribly. WilyD 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

tsk tsk. Cease this original muffin research at once! :P heqs ·:. 07:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double-double

This page persists in asserting that Tims popularized the term double-double, but does not provide a citation to prove it (the current citation shows only that it's in the OED). This term was popular before Tims existed. So I added a fact tag. Approximate Vicinity (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the article cited seems to imply that the term is not associated with Tims. Approximate Vicinity (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that "this page" persists in making this assertion, so much as some editors do. The double-double claim has been removed from the article a number of times, and keeps on finding its way back into the article. I agree with you, by the way, that it doesn't belong in the article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy's/American-owned

Although the article makes it clear that Tim Horton's was a Canadian company, it doesn't state that since its merger with Wendy's it has been an America-owned corporation, that is owned by Wendy's International Inc. This may not be a major issue but for a number of Canadians it is an important point. Many Canadians are also unaware that Tim Horton's is American. I don't have any reliable evidence of the latter just casual conversation with people, general discussions on the internet, and a some news reports I saw on tv about Tim Horton's in Afghanistan where cutomers interviewed were supportive, calling it such things as a "Canadian company" or "Canadian icon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.117 (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Wendy's did sell all of their stocks and TDL's headquarters are located in Canada, so it is a Canadian publicly traded company. cncxbox 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As noted, Wendy's sold Tim Hortons some time ago. In any event, in the age of globalization, the ownership of the shares of a corporation does not necessarily denote the nationality of a company. Some companies that we think of as being synonymous with the U.S., France or Japan, for example, are often widely held by institutional shareholders across the globe, such that "most" of the company is actually owned by "foreigners". Does that mean the "nationality" of the company changes? Not necessarily. What happens if a foreign firm buys the company and takes it private? Does the nationality of the company change every time it changes hands? Possibly, but maybe not. Even when Wendy's did own all of Tims, its headquarters and the vast majority of its operations and sales were in Canada. Ownership is not the sole indicia of corporate nationality, and arguably not the most important indicia, so it's debatable whether Tim's could be said to have been "American" even when Wendy's owned it. The answer is not clear cut. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"Indicia". Thats an interesting word. Also, Tim Hortons was founded in Canada by Canadians. Tim Hortons is a Canadian company, through and through. 72.136.137.24 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roll Up The Rim

Is their any evidence to suggest that Quebec receives more favourable odds of winning compared to other provinces? This is of, in addition to what's been in the papers recents (and on CBC) suggesting that this might be the case. If so, it should be in the article. Canking (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramblings of a Deranged Canadian

The criticism section is waaaayyyyy too much against the company. Remember NPOV!!! Also,The image galklery at the bottom is too small to be included. They should be deleted, or the section should be expanded. 99.224.132.115 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If the company is not being a good corporate citizen I see no problem with a lengthy criticism section. There is a completely separate article for Criticism of Wal-Mart! As long as the text is sourced and referenced, it can stay. Suttungr (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think many canadians care how Tim Hortons makes their coffee; many of us would sell our souls for just one cup! 72.136.137.24 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)